Survey shows greater support for new or expanded San Diego airport

By: SCOTT MARSHALL - Staff Writer | Monday, October 10, 2005 9:36 PM PDT

SAN DIEGO ---- More San Diego-area residents support building a new or expanded San Diego airport today than did so a year ago, according to survey results released Monday. That support includes most people in North County.

Almost two-thirds of those surveyed said they would vote for a new San Diego airport site or an expansion of the San Diego International Airport/Lindbergh Field, up from 55 percent in a similar survey conducted in November 2004.

"This is a measurement of the public's desire and the need for a solution," said Skip Hull, an economist at CIC Research, which conducted the survey for the public relations firm hired by the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority.

The airport authority manages daily operations at the San Diego airport and has been charged with finding options for expanding or replacing Lindbergh Field, which is projected to be overcrowded by 2015. Voters are slated to decide in November of next year on a site proposed by the airport authority.

Thella Bowens, the airport authority's president and chief executive officer, said the survey results showed the public has a greater understanding that the airport faces "serious capacity constraints."

North County residents showed the strongest support for a new or expanded airport, with 75 percent saying they would vote for such a proposal.

The percentage of those opposed to an expansion or new airport remained at 21 percent, while the percentage of those who said their opinion depended on where a new airport would be located dropped from 24 percent in 2004 to 13 percent last month.

The survey results were released Monday before a meeting of the airport authority's strategic planning committee. CIC Research surveyed 814 registered voters at random by telephone last month. The survey results have a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent, Hull said.

The survey did not ask respondents whether they preferred expanding the current airport or building at a new site, but some who answered the survey questions offered their own opinions on that issue, Hull said.

Of those who said they would vote for a new or expanded airport, 11 percent said they would support only the expansion of the existing airport and 9 percent said they would support only a new site, Hull said.

The airport authority has identified nine potential airport sites, including an expansion of Lindbergh Field and several military bases, including Miramar and Camp Pendleton. The authority has postponed studying the military sites until at least November, when the federal government finishes the latest round of base closures and reorganizations.

The military has strongly resisted the idea of building a civilian or joint military-civilian airport on Miramar or Camp Pendleton. The proposed civilian sites for new airports include locations that are more than an hour's drive from San Diego, including the East County town of Campo, which is more than 50 miles from San Diego and the Imperial Valley desert.

Bowens said the airport authority's board plans to decide on a final recommendation by the end of May or early June.

While 88 percent of those surveyed last month said they had heard something about the search for a regional airport solution, only 32 percent said they knew the issue would be before voters in 2006. However, both of those numbers showed increases from last year, when 82 percent had heard of the site selection efforts and only 21 percent knew it would be before them in the November 2006 election.

Contact staff writer Scott Marshall at (760) 631-6623 or smarshall@nctimes.com.

Next

Advertisement

Pre-Registration Comments[-]Go to Top

Fred wrote on Oct 11, 2005 2:29 PM:Horse-feathers. We have an airport and it's in a great location. Just make it bigger. Just becuase a bunch of rich folks don't want a bigger airport is no excuse. the airport was there when they moved in.

jim wrote on Oct 13, 2005 8:26 PM:Joint use of Miramar is the best solution. Current Military Use is confined to about 33% of the Land Area. Joint use works Fine at Hickam/ Honolulu Airport. Lindberg Field should be retained with a High Speed Rail Link interconnecting the Two. No. County had better wake up and take a position on this.

John E wrote on Oct 17, 2005 7:52 PM:I participated in the Fly To The Future forum in June. When I read the "final report," I was disappointed to see the big circular graphic leading to an ultimate outcome of "replace Lindbergh." This makes sense only if the new site is accessible (e.g. Miramar). If the new site is out in the desert somewhere, then it should SUPPLEMENT, rather than REPLACE, Lindbergh. It does not make sense to drive an hour or more to catch a one-hour flight to Silicon Valley, Sacramento, or Las Vegas.

JILL wrote on Nov 10, 2005 4:38 PM:Airport in Miramar? As if the 15 freeway and Miramar Road isn't congested enough now let's just make it so no one will make it out of there! In addition to the added traffic, if an enemy plans on hurting Americans where it hurts, all they have to do is target Miramar; they'll get both the heart of the military and civilians in one compacted area. San Diego Airport and the military operate differently and their priorities are different. We need a location where we will not jeopardize the well being of San Diego life, military or civilian. WE NEED TO MAKE THE CURRENT AIRPORT BIGGER OR SUPPLEMENT WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE.

Rodney wrote on Jan 2, 2006 10:10 AM:San Diego has grown from a small border town into a thriving metropolis community that has unique neighborhoods, a good environment, and a diverse economy with growing transportation problems. If you ask, what is the biggest problem San Diego faces; you will probably hear “traffic.” San Diego continues in its efforts to find a solution to where in the county should Lindbergh Field International Airport be located. After looking at 32 potential new airport sites, Lindbergh Field’s current location is about the best possible site, that is available in today’s NIMBY world; in which we live. Mr. Shapery’s San Diego/L.A. Maglev project on the web at ‘www.sdlamaglev.org; by any standard takes an evolutionary leap in providing San Diego and Los Angeles with a maglev high-speed train that would be five times faster and 50 percent less expensive to run then the conventional trains in use today anywhere in America. Billions of dollars; has already been invested in our public transportation systems to make them more reliable, safe, and convenient. We must continue to get the most out of our transportation investments, while at the same time reducing traffic delays caused by congestion and gridlock. We must continue to invest in Lindbergh Field making necessary upgrades to handle the projected additional passengers, overnight and express freight. A new multi-modal terminal is required to provide seamless connections between our local trolleys, buses and envisioned high-speed trains. Our Southern California regional airports all need to be integrated into a regional multi-modal transportation solution that would use the proposed maglev high-speed train. Our airlines, airports, and trains would become more efficient, covenant, and provide better access for travelers and commuters. Necessary change will not come easy and will require our civic leaders to work together to develop joint mayoral/congressional/private-sector partnerships. San Diego to remain competitive will require having modern and efficient transportation systems that provide the synergy needed between our high technology and related sectors going into the 21st century. Developing the maglev high-speed train could provide the needed incentive to develop access to a long debated and controversial cross-border terminal that could provide access for San Diego travelers to the Tijuana International Airport in Mexico. San Diego needs to look once again at building a regional cargo terminal at the neglected, marginally useable Brown Field Municipal Airport. A new cargo terminal could handle a large portion of the freight that comes from the border maquiladoras and local manufactures. This freight could be transferred to energy efficient and very quiet maglev high-speed trains that could take a large portion of the diesel trucks that makeup over thirty percent of the traffic; off our highways. Smart growth for San Diego’s region will consist in better connections between our transportation systems including our airports, trolleys, buses and envisioned maglev high-speed trains. In the interim, San Diego needs to move ahead with the 11-mile extension of the Mid-Coast Trolley a system that would extend the trolley from the Old Town Transit Center to UCSD and University Town Centre in La Jolla, CA.

Roger wrote on Jun 5, 2006 10:31 PM:What is wrong with these people. Miramar. Did we get these people from the same place we got the San Diego city council? I never call people morons, or idiots, or imbeciles, so I just won't.

Joseph wrote on Jul 6, 2006 3:47 PM:Who picked the Airport Authority to select a new site? What is it that they don't understand when the military says NO? It seems to me that they have failed and are wasting tax payer money now that they are struggling to suport their cost with ZERO results. Who ever is responsible for keeping them on the pay roll should be fired. Miramar has been a government installation since World War 1. It has to be a major contributor to the economy of San Diego. We need to make the military feel welcome and stop trying to insult them.

Registered Comments[-]Go to Top

Advertisement

Videos